Well I just did a google search on the single word ANARCHY. Among the top responses once you get past the definition and Wikipedia article seem to be

gaming (as already indicated)
eye wear
sailing of boats
a TV show

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Thanks for the explanation Playwrite and Bob.

In other words, its a bunch of crap.

The chart shows five search words, fascism, capitalism, communism, anarchy and democracy. As the 2008 elections ran through their peak, four of the five curves bumped together. This doesn't seem surprising, though I don't have a solid and profound explanation.

There are two spikes in anarchy curve which aren't well matched to the other curves. It does make me wonder if any role playing games or lines of sunglasses hit the net around those times. I really don't know.

Might not be pure crap. On the other hand, it might well be. If this is the best the anarchists can do to show their population surging, they seem to be grasping at straws.

Anarchy Online came out in 2001, so I'd be really surprised to find out its suddenly popular eight years later. It also doesn't make sense that people would rush to buy sunglasses at the end of summer: You'd think they'd at least wait a few extra months for the good sales. Of course, it could be the show starting its second season, or the games, or the sunglasses, or the music, or the concept could just be seeping in to the popular culture from all directions at once.

To see who is making money and what is being targeted, just check out the Google ads on the side of the Anarchy search. Its not games or glasses, its definitions that are returning profitability. One might also imagine that our seemingly endless debates about the meaning of words and the vocabulary of liberty is not such an isolated incident, but rather a part of a bigger online trend.

Further, for only the second time this saeculum, more people indetify as independent than as a member of either major party. A close-up shows this happens in July/August, about the same time Baucus started proposing retarded healthcare legislation and trying to blame the Republicans for it:

A watchdog group found that in July 2009 Baucus took more money from the health care industry in violation of the self-defined terms of his moratorium, leading Baucus to return the money.

Grasping at straws or recognizing trends, whatever helps explain the world we live in...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What is a third party going to gather around?

Distaste for the establishment may be all it takes, maybe from there we can respect individual disagreements and work toward a society that is more voluntary, fair, and free.

There's plenty of room left to argue about the vocabulary of it all

Originally Posted by independent

Distaste for the establishment may be all it takes, maybe from there we can respect individual disagreements and work toward a society that is more voluntary, fair, and free.

http://c4ss.org/content/1305

Originally Posted by Kevin Carson

[...]
In short, the Republicans have been busily taking the Democrats to school on just how worthless and contemptible a majority–even a nominal supermajority–really is.

And that’s a good thing all around.

Despite all the “progressive” soccer mom rhetoric about “working families,” Obama’s big initiatives do little or nothing of substance in the way of restraining the power of big business, or making things better for working people and the poor. Obama’s agenda is the agenda of the “liberal” head of what Nader calls our “one corporate party with two heads.”

[...]

We have reason to hope that no majority, of either party, will ever again have such a free hand. We’re experiencing something analogous to the revolutionary shift in advantage to the defensive, in military affairs, that followed the introduction of the machine gun. What’s likely to follow, no matter what party is in power or even holds a super-majority, is bloody political trench warfare in which the majority party expends political capital the same way Marshall Foch expended lives, all just to gain a few meaningless yards of dirt.

The state will be paralyzed. If it’s not able to react decisively in times of crisis to do much good, well, when did it ever DO much good, anyway? On the other hand, it won’t be able to act decisively to suppress anything good, either. And since the ultimate solutions to the economic crises we’re experiencing are the things that voluntary associations of free individuals are doing, and since the main danger we face is state intervention to suppress the counter-economy and prop up the old system as long as possible, paralysis is the best thing to hope for.

When the Republicans regain majorities in Congress, as they surely will eventually, and proceed to the business of overturning the Democrats’ work and railroading through a positive agenda of their own, I think they’ll find the Democrats have been excellent pupils. If sixty Senate seats are worthless for Democrats, they’ll be just as worthless to Republicans.

That’s exactly what we need–a government that’s impotent and paralyzed, no matter who controls it.

The era of bipartisanship, the era of moderation, is over.

Thanks, Republicans!

Originally Posted by Kevin Carson

n short, the Republicans have been busily taking the Democrats to school on just how worthless and contemptible a majority–even a nominal supermajority–really is...

When the Republicans regain majorities in Congress, as they surely will eventually, and proceed to the business of overturning the Democrats’ work and railroading through a positive agenda of their own, I think they’ll find the Democrats have been excellent pupils. If sixty Senate seats are worthless for Democrats, they’ll be just as worthless to Republicans.

That’s exactly what we need–a government that’s impotent and paralyzed, no matter who controls it.

The era of bipartisanship, the era of moderation, is over.

Thanks, Republicans!

Seems to me like he is describing unraveling politics. He is projecting that partisan stagnation will go on indefinitely. He has a point in that he has recognized where we are in the cycles. He is thinking linearly if he projects it will continue.

Me, I think we've learned quite a bit about foreign and military policy recently. I'm sympathetic with the "Regeneracy hasn't happened yet" proposal. It might be that things have to get worse before we can go into all out rebuilding mode.

I'm not convinced that they cycles have stopped, though. The crisis period still has time to run.

I'll note that while the machine gun introduced an era of stagnant warfare, the tank, dive bomber and other blitzkrieg elements made war very mobile. If attacked, one doesn't meet the enemy head on, one counter attacked at the flank, surrounded, then took the attackers captive.

Then Nukes changed it again. Major powers didn't want to fight each other anymore save through proxies. Thus, we're seeing a lot of insurgency, terrorism and nation building.

I do think the current stagnation is ugly. I don't know that any third party is offering something better, though.

For further analysis, anarchy does not trend with sunglasses or Anarchy Online nearly as well as its trends with G20.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Other than a few individuals on these boards, I just don't encounter anarchist thought, either in the media or in the real world.

Thanks for helping to prove my point.

These trends are completely independent of media mentions. You can see the chart below the main one to compare how often the mainstream media discusses these keywords, and most of the terms only move relative to what the 'authority media' leads.

In the 'real world,' I also don't tell conservative fundamentalists how laughable I find their beliefs. In the real world, anarchy is often equated with terrorism and more than a few people have been sent to jail recently for nothing but the words they say.

Otherwise, keep up those "cute word games" about reality, the real world, and other false dilemma fallacies. I'm sure that helps some people feel better about all the legalized theft and violence going on.



If this is what state imposed order looks like, maybe anarchy doesn't sound so bad.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Seems to me like he is describing unraveling politics. He is projecting that partisan stagnation will go on indefinitely. He has a point in that he has recognized where we are in the cycles. He is thinking linearly if he projects it will continue.

Me, I think we've learned quite a bit about foreign and military policy recently. I'm sympathetic with the "Regeneracy hasn't happened yet" proposal. It might be that things have to get worse before we can go into all out rebuilding mode.

Well, I think it's looking less and less likely, bar some patriotism-producing black swan (but this ain't 2001), that we're going to reach some sort of national political consensus during this 4T. It is true that we tend to overestimate this type of consensus with regard to the 1930s and 40s, but it was still quite powerful. Obama looked like he was on the verge of grasping some pre-regeneracy form of this, but because he came out of the gate the wrong way and the Republicans mobilized their opposition extremely effectively, I think he's lost it now for good. Unsurprisingly, the Republicans are jubilant. You call it ugly; I'm kind of enjoying the show. (It's quite amusing actually, despite the nastiness, and I'm sure other radicals would agree.)

I doubt the Carson is aware of TFT theory, but it would be quite easy to reconstruct a 4T narrative that proceeds without the national political consensus exemplified by prior 4Ts. (And as someone who has extensively studied worldwide 4Ts, I can assure you that it's not as rare as you may think.) And gee whiz! Maybe "Power to the People!" will be more than a slogan this time around.

(And before you accuse me of induldging in libertarian fantasy, I would like to remind readers of the far more numerous occassions of liberal fantasy on these boards).

Third Party prominence? Not in the forseeable future.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Third Party prominence? Not in the foreseeable future.

We can agree on that much, I guess.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

(And before you accuse me of indulging in libertarian fantasy, I would like to remind readers of the far more numerous occasions of liberal fantasy on these boards).

There have been lots of fantasies bandied about by lots of people. I don't see any monopoly on fantasies. I tend to think the common link among many posters here is a belief that the world can be transformed. A lot of folks would like to think that come the right point in the crisis, everyone in the country will suddenly come to accept the poster's own values system. The Reds thought it was happening for them in the early Bush 43 years. The Blues thought they had it early in Obama's years.

It is kind of nice that some anarchists at least recognize that it isn't happening for them any time soon.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I doubt the Carson is aware of TFT theory...

Likely not. Neither had Lincoln, clearly, but I still think his Second Inaugural is a clearer brief description of what a crisis is than anything Strauss and Howe wrote. In a similar way, Carson tagged the essence of 3T stagnation pretty well.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

And gee whiz! Maybe "Power to the People!" will be more than a slogan this time around.

I see many crises as featuring coalitions between new elites trying to wrestle power from old elites while the People try to wrest power from the old elites. In the Revolution, the new elites were to some extent traders wanting to break loose from the colonial closed port system. In the Civil War, the northern industrialists wanted a stronger central government pushing manufacturing and land open in the west with a free economy.

The two groups, new elites and people, needed each other. One problem we're having this time around is a lack of new elites pushing to take power from the old. The new elites ought to be able to provide money and focus, while the People provide numbers.

Real transformation has taken place in past crises. There are just two many problems this time around, and no obvious single uniting theme that resolves all of them. Thus, a lot of catalysts, and it isn't very easy to pin where we are in this crisis. It is easier to peg the older simpler crises with 20 20 hindsight.

The Republicans during the Bush 43 years often accused the Democrats of hoping the US would fail, or even working to make sure Bush 43 failed. There is much truth about shoes currently being on the other feet. I suppose the anarchists could be equal opportunity hopers for failure and disaster.

I'd just like to keep a little focus on learning from our trials and solving the problems before us. I'm a bit ticked at the liberals pretending that nothing meaningful was learned in Iraq. If a culture wants to pretend it hasn't learned anything, it might have to learn it again. With the anarchists, being pleased by failure without contributing towards solving real problems feels problematic.

I think I've said enough about the Republican's shortcomings.

Anyway, my fantasy is a United States with a far less coercive foreign policy, that might still work to stabilize failed states, but will recognize how expensive in treasure and blood this can be. I'd like to see a new green energy industry booting up a positive K cycle that will take hold in the high. Along the way, too expensive health care, poor regulation of the financial community, too much lobbyist influence in government, and a too large division of wealth might be among the problems that need be addressed.

We're all allowed to dream?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You present taxes as the answer, but it seems like if the taxes are really high, they'd ask for more pay to offset the taxes.

Why would they? Here you missed my earlier point about the meaning of money. Above a certain level, it has no value other than comparison. Since all are taxed, there is no need for more. Asking for more take home pay would greatly impact earnings, which impact the stock price adversely. Since management are also shareholders, and capital gains were taxed much less harshly, asking for more money was against the CEOs own interest. Just how big of an enterprise you commanded counted for more then than it does today. No one had more money than J Paul Getty or Howard Hughes, yet the much poorer Sloans, Roches and Fords were the masters of the universe of their day, not these odd ducks.

Have you considered a drop in shareholder control over corporations as a causal factor? (The advent of 401K plans ca. 1980, would have dramatically increased the ratio of un-elected institutional proxies on corporate boards.)

Of course, but modern CEOs are far more responsive to shareholders than they were back then, so this is a nonstarter. Most CEO compensation comes in the form of stock options, which has no impact on corporate earnings. Corporate earnings have have an immediate powerful impact on stock prices. Since CEO's need short-term increases in stock prices to maximize the value of their options, they are incented to give themselves small saaries, but large amounts of stock options. The latter are taxes at the rate for ordianry income and so would have been counter productive.

The fact that modern CEOs choose to use stock options (as opposed to grants of stock) as compensation (despite the higher rate at which they are taxed) shows that CEOs today do not believe that their efforts build shareholder value over the long term. In constrast, in the era of 90% taxes on short-term gains from stock options (but 25% tax on long term returns), CEOs were incented to operate in the long-term interest of the company.

There are many reasons to favor high marginal tax rates on high earners that are unrelated to bubbles.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Seems to me like he is describing unraveling politics. He is projecting that partisan stagnation will go on indefinitely. He has a point in that he has recognized where we are in the cycles. He is thinking linearly if he projects it will continue.

Carson both does and doesn't think it will continue. He thinks it will continue until people are forced to build local social institutions without waiting for guidance from the state. There is precedent for this: consider the reclaimed factories in Argentina where displaced workers restarted factories abandoned in the wake of their currency crisis.

Whether our political system is so broken that it will simply drive us off a cliff without addressing the concerns of the average person remains to be seen. Unfortunately, the health care reform debate hasn't exactly inspired confidence in the state's ability to respond to complaints from non-elites. I think that Carson has a poor tendency to view the future prospects of anarchism in a quasi-millenialist fashion -- but if we get to the regeneracy point in this Crisis and no one is leading from the top, then leadership will come from the bottom, whether the ruling class likes it or not.

I think that scenario is likely to get messy, so I'm not thrilled by the possibility.

I agree that it will get messy. I forsee a huge battle at some point between the big corporations,their lackeys and sympathizers and the common people. I would expect it to come when there is a major effort to get rid or or roll back earned entitlements that people have such as pensions or social security just to keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful. Its like that movie title THERE WILL BE BLOOD. I do not see the Boomer generation just shrugging their shoulders and saying "oh well, we got screwed". That may be the nature of X'ers, but not us Boomers. There will be blood.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I agree that it will get messy. I forsee a huge battle at some point between the big corporations,their lackeys and sympathizers and the common people. I would expect it to come when there is a major effort to get rid or or roll back earned entitlements that people have such as pensions or social security just to keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful. Its like that movie title THERE WILL BE BLOOD. I do not see the Boomer generation just shrugging their shoulders and saying "oh well, we got screwed". That may be the nature of X'ers, but not us Boomers. There will be blood.

Don't forget the military-industrail complex. We're feeding the war machine a trillion dollars a year and we're planning to build a heroin shipping highway network in Afghanistan without the establishment raising a peep about the cost or the long term effect.
OTOH, when the idea of healthcare security for the common people is raised, the establishment press gets out its collective caluclators and starts counting pennies.

Trillions for well connected parasites.
But not a damn penny for the sick.

Well said Tee.

The question is now "at what point do people really begin to do something about it?" and i am not talking about tea bag rallies.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Carson both does and doesn't think it will continue. He thinks it will continue until people are forced to build local social institutions without waiting for guidance from the state. There is precedent for this: consider the reclaimed factories in Argentina where displaced workers restarted factories abandoned in the wake of their currency crisis.

Whether our political system is so broken that it will simply drive us off a cliff without addressing the concerns of the average person remains to be seen. Unfortunately, the health care reform debate hasn't exactly inspired confidence in the state's ability to respond to complaints from non-elites. I think that Carson has a poor tendency to view the future prospects of anarchism in a quasi-millenialist fashion -- but if we get to the regeneracy point in this Crisis and no one is leading from the top, then leadership will come from the bottom, whether the ruling class likes it or not.

I think that scenario is likely to get messy, so I'm not thrilled by the possibility.

The scenario is messy because its introduction is even worse. In Argentina the cause was the failure of the monetary system. Here it could be the moral failure of capitalists (really not so much entrepreneurs as plutocrats) -- their decisions to become importers instead of manufacturers, to drive wages to starvation levels (still possible), to gut the public sector (unless they can derive profit from the government activity, as in materiel-devouring war) and to ravage the middle class. If people were to follow the rules as defined by the ruling class they would sell off or pawn assets until they are destitute, accept some "charity" that comes with debt bondage, and...


Generation X would rather push carts as street vendors... and that may be the salvation of our corrupt, depraved economic order. They may be the ones to find potential in labor and productive capital that our supposed capitalist class abandoned.

One generational pattern that seems to hold is that the Reactive generation is the most entrepreneurial of all generations. That doesn't mean economically successful -- just the ones most likely to start businesses rather than trust tycoons and big landowners with their "generosity". Think of all the now-giant corporations that the Gilded started: railroads, meatpacking, steel, petroleum, banking -- all started in niches. Some of those entities exist to this day. In contrast, the Adaptive generation is in general the least likely to be entrepreneurial, Such businesses as they start are professional practices and government contractors. Think about it: American enterprise on a large scale in the last 50 years has largely depended upon the endowments of generations through the GI Generation. The best-known Silent entrepreneurs are likely Warren Buffett, T. Boone Pickens, Carl Icahn (investors and corporate raiders), H. Ross Perot (government contractor), and (gasp!) Ken Lay, John Gotti and Bernie Madoff (criminals). (OK -- Dave Thomas founded a large fast-food chain). The Silent have left little of any legacy of entrepreneurial business. Fast food and electronics? Definitely GI.